THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF HISTORICAL SCIENCE
HISTORIOGRAPHY AS A SCIENCE.
LECTURE 1
Historiography is the history of historical science. It appeared when there was already a subject of its research, that is, historical science. Prior to this, the term "historiography" meant the science of history in general (1). So, in the XVIII century. G. Miller had the title of court historiographer in Russia, and at the beginning of the 19th century. N. M. Karamzin. However, they did not engage in historiography, but created works on history.
When divergences of various historical schools, directions and currents were discovered, there was a need to analyze historical views. This happened in the first half of the 19th century. It was then that historiography arose, and with it the methodology of history. Since that time, historiography began to be understood as the history of historical science itself.
Historiography is closely connected with the history of society, it follows from the needs of social development. Historical science at all times has been both an instrument of knowledge and a means of ideological confrontation. Historiography is constantly dependent on the socio-economic and political processes taking place in society. At the same time, it has a reverse effect on the development of the history of society, as well as on historical ideas, which depend on what ideological and theoretical positions the historiographer adheres to.
Historiography as a science differs significantly from historical bibliography, although even today there is often a mixture of these two scientific disciplines. M. V. Nechkina emphasized that, "without belittling the great auxiliary significance of historical bibliography for research work, one must clearly dissociate himself from historiography: it only registers and classifies historical literature - an important source for historiography and nothing more" (2).
Historiography is the science of the emergence and accumulation of historical knowledge, the transformation of knowledge into historical science, the development of various historical trends, currents and schools in accordance with their methodology and socio-political positions. Historiography studies the source base of the works of historians and their interpretation of sources.
The task of the course of national historiography is to trace the entire process of development of historical knowledge and science throughout the history of Russia.
Historiography reveals the leading trends in historical science. At the same time, it must be remembered that these goals are closely connected with the position that the ideas of the ruling class are dominant in every era. This conclusion is fully applicable to historical science.
Historiography reveals the conditions for the development of historical knowledge and science, the alignment of class and socio-political forces, and the acuteness of social and ideological contradictions. Unless these circumstances are taken into account, an objective assessment of the historical views of historians is impossible. At the same time, various areas of theoretical research are distinguished, and the confrontation of various ideas and schools is shown.
Historiography is part of the science of science and at the same time part of the history of spiritual culture. It is located at the intersection of two sciences: history and the history of social thought, hence its importance and the extraordinary prospect of new discoveries. In this respect, historiography can be compared with the history of philosophy.
One of the important aspects of historiography is the clarification of what a "historiographic source" and "historiographic fact" are.
The source for the historiographer is, first of all, research in the field of history - monographs, dissertations, articles, scientific reports, theses, reviews, etc. In addition, materials from the personal funds of historians, their correspondence, memoirs can be used as a historiographic source.
The historiographic fact is the assessments, views, thoughts of the authors about history.
So, without research in the field of history, there can be no historiography as a science, just as there can be no history of physics, chemistry, and literature without the presence of knowledge produced in these branches. Historiography studies not only the result of research, but also the research process itself. To understand the essence of the research, we must become interested in the very course of the research, the creative laboratory of the scientist, the process of creation. Of course, here we are talking about both the technique and the methodology of the study.
Historiography in our time has become both an academic discipline and a scientific approach to solving any problem (observance of these conditions requires scientific ethics).
Dissertators write historiography on the topic of research, students conduct the first historiographic experiments while working on term papers and theses. The main task is to find out the degree of study of the problem being developed, to contribute to the coverage of issues that have not yet been resolved.
But the historiographic approach most often leads to the fact that the historian either joins or dissociates himself from his predecessors and draws his own conclusions on the basis of new facts. This approach is fully justified.
Can you remember when you studied history at school or university? Was it that interesting? Most likely, your answer will depend on how your teacher presented the material. If he simply made you memorize certain dates, then it is not surprising that history seemed to you "mortal boredom." However, perhaps it was not so at all, and your teacher could breathe life into historical science. When he talked about life in ancient Egypt or in the time of Sparta, the historical narrative literally came to life in the minds of inquisitive students. Did it seem to you that historical figures literally came to life in your mind? Well, if that was the case. What's the matter? Why might one teacher's approach be so different from another's? The difference between a good history teacher and a bad one is the same as the difference between dry history and historiography. It turns out that the stages of historiography tend to describe events much more vividly. How does this happen? Let's find out.
What is historiography?
Historiography is, simply put, the availability of complete systematized information that reveals the essence of a certain direction in history. A simple example can be given. Biblical historiography is a collection of collected information about the Jewish people of biblical times, the availability of relevant research in the field of archeology, vocabulary of the Hebrew language and available scientific discoveries; a clear system of facts on a historical line or evidence that is themed.
If we talk about this type of research as a science, then historiography is a discipline that studies history and its trends. Historiography monitors the quality of scientific research and its clear design. This includes checking the relevance of the information for the researchers for whom it was covered. According to Ozhegov's dictionary, the historiography of history is the science of the development of historical knowledge and
Origin of historiography
Historiography is a method of studying history, improved by Croce, thanks to which it is possible to see the connection between history and philosophy. Why is there a need for this science? The fact is that in addition to observing and recording facts, there is always a need to give an explanation for the events that have occurred. And, as you know, people have different opinions. Therefore, a correct perception of reality must necessarily affect how the story describes its point of view. In addition, Croce attached great importance to modernity.
Since historical documents are often just a presentation of a purely subjective point of view of the author, which can radically differ from reality, both chronology and the correct approach to research are important. True, these two concepts cannot be called opposites. Rather, they are two completely different points of view. Chronology only tells facts, while history is life. The chronicle is lost in the past, and history is modern at all times. In addition, any meaningless story turns into a banal chronology. According to Croce, history could not come from the chronicle, just as the living does not come from the dead.
Philological history
What is philological history? This is an approach, thanks to which, for example, from several historical works or books you can get one. This technique in Russian is called compilation - combining other people's research and ideas, without independent processing of primary sources. A person who uses this approach does not need to go through a mountain of books, but the end result obtained as a result of such research is of practically no use. We get dry facts, perhaps not always reliable, but we lose the most important thing - living history. Thus, history based on philology may be true, but there is no truth in it. Those who use this method can and want to convince both others and themselves that a certain document is an indisputable argument in favor of the truth. Thus, they, as compilers of the chronology, seek the truth within themselves, but miss the most important thing. Such an approach can in no way affect the true development of historiography.
Something else about the origin of historiography
If we talk about what Soviet historiography or any other is, then it can be noted that earlier this term meant what it means, namely "history in writing" (graphos - writing). However, later everything changed, and today behind this expression they see the history of history itself. Among those who stood at the origins of historiography, one can name S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky and P. N. Milyukov. They, like several others, explored both factual assumptions and already proven systems. By the end of the 19th century, scientists had developed the entire palette of scientific historical research. In addition to the researchers listed above, one can name others who brought clarity to the significance of historiography as a science and who described the process of formation of the study of the past using a scientific approach. As we said above, historiography is above the narrow philological view of the world. Rather, it is an attempt to recreate the world as it was hundreds and even thousands of years ago, a desire to penetrate the eye of thought in those ancient times and even resurrect the life and life of people who lived a long time ago.
Significance of historiography
The main goal of historiography is a complete understanding of both the past and the present. Thanks to it, it becomes possible to determine in which direction history will develop, and to make scientific research more accurate. Thanks to historiography, it becomes possible to train more experienced specialists in the field of history.
In fact, there would be a huge gap between science and practice if they were not connected by historiography, which turns theory into practical application. In addition, if a professional historian knows well the origin of the science that he researches and teaches, this helps him to be an excellent professional in his field.
Modern attempts to expand the view of historiography
In the past few decades, a lot of efforts have been made to bring a new look at the history of historical science. Among the published literature, one can especially note the collection "Soviet historiography", published in 1996, as well as the book "Domestic historical science in the Soviet era" (2002). We should not be surprised by the special interest in historiography in recent times, since it opens the way to a deeper study of historical science.
Efforts to better understand Russian history are not a new idea. Years passed, people changed, which means that approaches to learning also changed. Previously, history was studied more in order to discover precedents of the past. However, at all times, Russian historiography was formed under the influence of the philosophy of the time in which the researcher lived. Providentialism, in no way connected with the true teachings of Holy Scripture, served as the main engine of the desire to understand history in the Middle Ages. Then any event or incident was attributed to God's intervention, ignoring the fact that the Bible clearly says: "Man rules man to his detriment." Thus, Scripture indicates that for any turn of events in history, the people who produce them are primarily responsible. Russian historiography has also gone through such reasoning, not based on facts.
Representation of the Slavs
Although today all the ideas of people that existed during the time of Kievan Rus are not exactly known, but examining the facts, one can still notice that in those days there were many legends and songs that reflect the world of views. Their ideas about the world around them are radically different from today. And although there may be grains of truth in them, in general, no one will treat such quirks with confidence. However, one can heed the words of one writer who called all Slavic songs, epics, fairy tales and proverbs "the dignity and mind of the people." In other words, the people who wrote them thought the same way.
However, over time, with the emergence of new historical facts and an increase in knowledge in the field of approach to the study of history, science itself improved. With the emergence of new points of view and the writing of the latest scientific essays, history has changed and the principles of its research have been improved.
Long-standing attempts to keep a chronology
Reading most of the ancient scientific works on history, one can notice one interesting characteristic feature - the narration of any events usually began from time immemorial and ended with the time in which the author himself lived. For modern scientists, the information that the historian recorded about the time in which he himself lived is of greater importance, since this information is the most plausible and reliable. A study of the writings of different authors shows that even then there was a difference in the views of different people on the same issues. Thus, different people often had completely different opinions about a particular historical event.
What have we learned?
Thus, we were able to plunge into the Middle Ages and see how strikingly different approaches to scientific research were compared to our time. We were able to briefly see what influenced the development of history as a science, and considered how flat research differs from truly living research, the doors to which are opened by a scientific approach, known today as historiography. By applying what you have learned in your personal research, you can make your study of history more interesting for yourself and others. The historiography of Kievan Rus or the historiography of Russia is no longer a problem for you.
The term "historiography" consists of two Greek words: "history", i.e. reconnaissance, research of the past and "grapho" - I write. The concept of "historiography" is not unambiguous.
Historiography 歴史学 - in the broad sense of the word - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of historical science. Historiography tests the correct application of the scientific method in writing a historical work, focusing on the author, his sources, the separation of facts from interpretation, as well as style, author's biases and the audience for which he wrote this work in the field of history.
In the narrow sense of the word, this is a collection of studies in the field of history devoted to a specific topic or historical era (for example, the historiography of the Tokugawa era), or a collection of historical works that have internal unity in ideological, linguistic or national terms (for example, Marxist, Russian-language or Japanese historiography) .
I draw your attention to one more circumstance. The term "historiography" often denotes historical literature on any issue, problem, period. In this sense, it is customary to talk about the historiography of feudalism, the historiography of the Great French Revolution, the historiography of the peasant reform of 1861 in Russia, etc.
The term "historiography" is also used as a synonym for historical works, historical literature in general. Based on this understanding, in the last century, the authors of historical works were called historiographers.
At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that historiography or the creation of written works on history are by no means inherent in every society. Before the appearance of writing, of course, written history did not exist either: the events of the past were reflected only in oral folk art - folklore.
The idea of the subject of historiography developed gradually, as the theory and practice of historiographic research developed.
History of historiography
In ancient times, even before the advent of writing, historical ideas and some elements of historical knowledge existed among all peoples in orally transmitted legends and legends, in the genealogies of ancestors. The emergence of classes and the state expanded the need for historical knowledge, and the appearance of writing made it possible to start accumulating it. In early class societies, certain conditions were prepared for the development of historical knowledge (for example, various systems of reckoning were developed), the first records of historical content arose: historical inscriptions (of kings, pharaohs), weather records of events, etc. Religion had a huge influence on the description and interpretation of historical events . All historical events were explained by the "will of the gods." Such historical ideas were fixed in "holy books" (for example, in the Bible).
An important stage in the progressive development of historical knowledge was ancient historiography.
It found its highest manifestation in the writings of ancient Greek and then Roman historians. The writings of these historians are no longer fragmentary, but a coherent, entertaining narrative, devoted primarily to political history.
Historiography (from History and ... graphics)
1) the history of historical science as a whole, as well as a set of studies devoted to a specific topic or historical era (for example, I. the Great October Socialist Revolution), or a set of historical works that have internal unity in social class or national terms (for example, Marxist and ., French I.). 2) A scientific discipline that studies the history of historical science. I. as the history of historical science. I. until the middle of the 19th century. (before the emergence of Marxist ideology). In ancient times, even before the advent of writing, historical ideas and some elements of historical knowledge existed among all peoples in orally transmitted legends and legends, in the genealogies of ancestors. The emergence of classes and the state expanded the need for historical knowledge, and the appearance of writing made it possible to start accumulating it. In early class societies, certain conditions were prepared for the development of historical knowledge (for example, various systems of reckoning were developed), the first records of historical content arose: historical inscriptions (of kings, pharaohs), weather records of events, etc. Religion had a huge influence on the description and interpretation of historical events . All historical events were explained by the "will of the gods." Such historical ideas were fixed in "holy books" (for example, in the Bible (See Bible)). An important stage in the progressive development of historical knowledge was ancient history. It found its highest manifestation in the writings of the ancient Greek historians Herodotus (nicknamed the "father of history") and especially Thucydides; the latter is already characterized by the refusal to explain history by the intervention of divine forces and the desire to penetrate into the internal causal relationship of events, elements of historical criticism - an attempt to separate reliable facts from fiction. The works of these historians are no longer fragmentary, but a coherent, entertaining narrative, devoted primarily to political history (the history of the Greco-Persian wars, the Peloponnesian War). In the writings of Polybius, the concept of world history was first born. The works of Titus Livius, Tacitus, Plutarch (masters of the biographical genre), Appian, and others were also of significant importance in ancient history. The idea of historical progress was alien to ancient historical thought, for all its achievements: history was depicted either as a regressive process or as a cyclic a cycle that repeats the same stages. (For more on ancient history, see the articles Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, section Culture.) The Chinese historian Sima Qian (2nd-1st centuries BC) created the first general history of China, moving away from the purely chronological trying to highlight not only the political, but also other aspects of the life of ancient China. I. of the era of feudalism, when the nature of historical thinking was determined mainly by feudal-church ideology, is characterized by a providentialist view of history, in which historical events were viewed as the result of the intervention of the divine will, as the implementation of the “divine plan” (see Providentialism). This idea was also imbued with the feudal-Christian periodization of world history according to the “four monarchies” (Assyro-Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian, Roman - the last “earthly” state) - their successive change was considered as the result of divine providence. Western European feudal Christian Islam, along with the Bible, was greatly influenced by the philosophical and historical concepts of the Christian theologian Augustine the Blessed, and Muslim Islam by the Koran. (about Muslim Arab medieval. I. see in the article Arab culture, section Historical science.) The most common forms of historical writings, along with hagiographic (hagiographic) literature (see Lives of the Saints) were annals, “world histories” (for example, Western European chronicler Otto of Freisingen, Arab historian at-Tabari) - reviews of world history from the "creation of the world". Medieval authors, as a rule, saw only the external connection of phenomena in the form of their chronological sequence, hence the characteristic form of historical writings with weather records of events - annals, Russian Chronicles (the most famous of the early Russian chronicles is "The Tale of Bygone Years"). Gradually there was a complication of the historical narrative. The primitive annals are replaced by more complex Chronicles, as cities develop, urban chronicles appear; in the process of state centralization, chronicle compilations arise (for example, the Great French Chronicles of the 13th-15th centuries, Moscow chronicle compilations of the 15th-16th centuries, etc.). One of the earliest attempts in medieval history to move from purely narrative history to a presentation of historical events in their causal connection (on a secular basis) was made in the 14th century. Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who rejected the explanation of history from the standpoint of religious ideology and considered history as a constant change in the life and customs of people, as a continuous process of the rise and fall of states. The first stage in the development of bourgeois historical thought was the Western European humanist ideology of the Renaissance (15th-16th centuries). Its most prominent representatives saw the driving force of the historical process in the political struggle of parties and social groups replacing each other in power (Italian humanists N. Machiavelli, F. Guicciardini), tried to uncover the laws of historical development and connect them with more general laws, developing issues of influence geographic environment on history (French thinker J. Bodin). This secular approach to history signified a break with its feudal-theological interpretation and was a huge progressive step in the development of history. The invention (mid-15th century) and the spread of printing were of exceptional importance for history. Humanist historians, relying on the successes of philology, laid the foundation for a systematic criticism of historical sources (the Italian humanists Flavio Biondo, Lorenzo Valla, and others), which became a powerful tool for overcoming the ideas developed by feudal history. They laid the foundations (the Italian humanist L. Bruni) of a new periodization of history (dividing it into ancient, middle, new). Humanist ideology undermined the monopoly of feudal ideology in Western Europe. Representatives of feudal-absolutist and feudal-Catholic history, in their struggle against the new understanding of history, paid great attention to the collection, systematization, and publication of historical sources. In the 17th century auxiliary historical disciplines appear (diplomatics, paleography); Bollandists and Maurists publish the first extensive collections of medieval historical documents. In the 18th century the beginning of the collection and publication of historical sources was laid in Russia (see Art. Archeography). In the 17th century Dutch and English bourgeois thinkers (G. Grotius, T. Hobbes) made the first attempts to create theories of social development based on the principles of natural law and other rationalistic teachings; the Italian thinker G. Vico revived and developed the idea of a cycle in history. With clarity unknown until then, the question of the laws of history was raised by the French enlighteners of the 18th century. Approaching history from the positions of rationalism, they looked for the laws of history either in the rational essence of man or in the interaction of society with nature, mechanically likening the laws of history to the laws of nature. The French enlighteners put forward the idea of creating a universal history of mankind, based on the recognition of the unity of the destinies of the human race (Voltaire), the theory of the state of nature, which claimed that at the beginning of historical development man was only a part of nature (J. J. Rousseau), the idea of continuous progress in history ( J. Condorcet and others), developed the doctrine of the influence of the natural geographical environment on social development (Ch. Montesquieu). They considered the main subject of historians not only political history, but also the history of culture (in the broad sense of the word). Prominent representatives of the English and Scottish educationalists (E. Gibbon, W. Robertson) gave detailed coverage of important periods of European history from anti-clerical and anti-feudal positions. Of great importance were the philosophical and historical concepts of the German enlighteners, especially I. G. Herder, and the Russian enlighteners, especially A. N. Radishchev, who approached history from the point of view of the revolutionary struggle against autocracy and serfdom. Enlightenment ideology and its ideas were opposed in the early 19th century. representatives of the reactionary noble Romanticism a. This trend of romantic history (especially strong in German historical and historical-legal science) rejected the existence of upheavals in history, idealized the Middle Ages, and denied a rationalistic explanation of history. However, the Romantics, for all the reactionary nature of their general positions, introduced fruitful ideas into the progressive development of historical science. They insisted on the existence of an internal connection in historical epochs, believing that the current state of each people is the product of its long historical development, drew attention to the qualitative originality of the history of individual peoples, etc. Prominent representatives of the so-called historical school of law (See Historical School of Law) in Germany (F.K. Savigny, K.F. Eichhorn) made a significant contribution to the study of the history of state and law, basing their research on a thorough study and criticism of historical sources. Classical philology played an important role in the development of critical research methods in historical science. Its application to ancient history (by the German scientists F. A. Wolf, A. Beck, and especially B. G. Niebuhr) meant a new stage in the development of this branch of historical science. L. Ranke (Germany) for the first time began to systematically apply to sources on medieval and modern history the principle of research, previously put forward by ancient philologists. The progress of source studies made it possible to start creating the first scientific serial publications of sources on the history of antiquity (“Corpus of Greek inscriptions” - from 1825, later, from 1863 - “Corpus of Latin inscriptions”) and the Middle Ages ( Monumenta Germaniae historica and etc.). At the same time, Ranke's historical concept (providentialism, the idea of the decisive role of ideas in history, the assertion of the primacy of foreign policy over domestic policy, the predominant attention to the activities of "great people", etc.) was reactionary; it had a significant and lasting influence on the conservative Junker-bourgeois movement in Germany. In Russian history of that time, the nobility-monarchist trend was dominant (the most important representatives of the first half of the 19th century were N. M. Karamzin and M. P. Pogodin). It defended the thesis about the decisive role of the autocracy in Russian history, about the fundamental difference between the historical development of Russia and Western Europe (in the pre-Petrine era), about the unacceptability of the revolutionary path of development for Russia. The “skeptical school” of Russian I. (M. T. Kachenovsky and others), which demanded a critical attitude to historical sources, began a critical revision of many concepts of noble I. In the 1st half of the 19th century. the progress of historical ideas was greatly influenced by the philosophical and historical concepts of utopian socialism (primarily by A. Saint-Simon) and the philosophy of G. Hegel, who undertook - within the framework of the idealist philosophy of history - the most fruitful attempt to reveal the internal connection of the uninterrupted movement, change and transformation inherent in the history of mankind. Saint-Simon's idea of the role of the class struggle in history, which arose from his generalization of the historical experience of the Great French Revolution, was accepted by the French liberal-bourgeois historians of the Restoration era - O. Thierry, F. Mignet, F. Guizot. Despite the historical and class limitations of the theory of class struggle advanced by them (the explanation of the origin of classes from conquest, the identification of the struggle of classes with the struggle of "races"), their development of the concrete history of France and England as the history of the class struggle was a phenomenon of great scientific importance in world history. Recognition of the laws of historical development, the desire to establish the relationship of historical phenomena and to consider history as a process of development primarily of political and legal institutions - with special attention to the history of the state (with which the history of the people was often identified) - became characteristic of the approach to covering history by many major historians 19 in. From these positions, in particular, S. M. Solovyov approached the consideration of Russian history. Pre-Marxist scientific-historical thought received its highest development in the revolutionary-democratic conception of history. The historical views of V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. A. Dobrolyubov, N. G. Chernyshevsky, and the democratic historian A. P. Shchapov expressed the approach of historical knowledge to the materialist understanding of history. Remaining, in the end, on the positions of idealism in the field of methodology of the social sciences, at the same time, when raising the question of the objective laws of history, which they considered common to all peoples, they attached particular importance to the development of economic life, changes in the socio-economic situation of peoples. wt. The core of the revolutionary democratic concept was the idea of the decisive role of the popular masses in social development, in the course of which the revolutionary democrats attached decisive importance to the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. The revolutionary-democratic conception of history in many ways contributed to the preparation of the conditions for the dissemination in Russia of a materialistic understanding of history. The Emergence of Marxist I. Despite significant progress in historical knowledge, all of pre-Marxist I. was characterized by an idealist interpretation of the main causes of the development of society. With the spread of dialectical materialism by K. Marx and F. Engels to the field of social phenomena, history for the first time received a consistently scientific methodological basis. The emergence of a materialistic understanding of history was a turning point in the development of knowledge of social life. Marxism proved that the driving forces of history are determined by material production, the emergence, development and death of various modes of production that give rise to the entire social structure. The key to the study of the self-movement of human society was found in the laws of development of the modes of production. Thus, the path was indicated “... to the scientific study of history as a single, regular process in all its enormous versatility and inconsistency” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 26, p. 58). The application of the doctrine of socio-economic formations as a guiding methodological principle to the analysis of specific social phenomena made it possible "... to correctly and accurately depict the actual historical process ..." (ibid., vol. 1, p. 164). On this basis, Marx and Engels showed that the very objective course of history leads to the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, to the liquidation of capitalism as a result of the socialist revolution, to the victory of communism. The revelation by Marx and Engels of the significance of the class struggle and revolutions in history, the world-historical mission of the working class, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the proletarian party armed historical science with an understanding of the main and decisive questions of social development. Thus, historical knowledge was organically connected with the practice of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Marx's Capital was of great importance for the development of Marxist historical science. With the advent of Capital (the first volume was published in 1867), the materialistic understanding of history was transformed from a scientific hypothesis into a rigorous scientific theory confirmed by a comprehensive analysis of capitalism, which became synonymous with the only scientific perception of history (see ibid., p. 140) . Marx and Engels gave examples of the application of the dialectical-materialist method not only in the elaboration of general philosophical and economic problems, but also in problems of concrete history. This was reflected in such historical studies as "The Class Struggle in France", "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" by Marx, "The Peasant War in Germany", "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Engels, etc. The most complete coverage was received in the works Marx and Engels, the history of capitalist society, the history of bourgeois revolutions, the history of the labor and national liberation movements, but they also developed many cardinal problems in the history of pre-capitalist formations. Bourgeois I. 2nd half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Bourgeois historical science in the second half of the 19th century. had major successes in the field of accumulating facts and the initial processing of the collected material, raising the level of research work, its technique, developing auxiliary historical disciplines, and publishing historical sources. The organization of historical science and historical education improved - departments of history and historical seminars were created everywhere at universities, numerous historical societies arose, and the number of historical journals rapidly increased. There was an expansion of the problems studied by historical science. The history of political events still occupied a dominant position in bourgeois history. However, bourgeois I. began a more or less extensive study of the history of spiritual and material culture, the history of socio-economic life, industry, trade, and somewhat later, the history of social movements. In historical research, the comparative historical method began to be used, historians increasingly began to turn to statistics. The study of the early stages of the development of human society has been marked by major successes. In the works of the American scientist L. G. Morgan, for the first time, the problem of the clan as a universal form of organization of primitive society received a broad interpretation. The works of the German scientist G. L. Maurer, the founder of the communal theory (See Communal Theory), proved that private ownership of land was not the original form of land tenure. One of the largest studies in the field of ancient history, which had a significant impact on the further development of bourgeois historical antiquity, was the Roman History by the German historian T. Mommsen. In the problems of medieval studies, an important place was occupied by the question of the origin of Western European feudalism. In search of an answer to it resumed, which began in the 18th century. controversy between the so-called Germanists and novelists about the role of Germanic and Roman institutions in the formation of feudalism. Among the bourgeois medievalists, both historical and legal (Maurer, G. Weitz, P. Roth and others in Germany, W. Stebs and others in Great Britain), and historical and economic direction (it gained more and more influence from the mid-70s BC) dominated ideas about the qualitative difference between medieval society and late Roman society, emphasized the decisive role of the free peasantry and the community in the early Middle Ages (its importance was also recognized by representatives of the patrimonial theory (See. The patrimonial theory) of the 2nd half of the 19th century. - German scientists K. T. Inama-Sternegg, K. Lamprecht and others). Bourgeois researchers in the history of modern times have intensified their study of the problems of bourgeois revolutions. In the struggle against the clerical-monarchist, bourgeois-gentry, and other reactionary tendencies (A. Tocqueville, I. Taine, and others), the French liberal-republican tradition in the study of Great French revolution (A. Olar and his school). Reflecting the growing conservatism of the English bourgeoisie, English liberalism opposed (following T. B. Macaulay) the bloodless “Glorious Revolution” of 1688–89 to the “extremes” of the revolutionary events of the 1640s. 17th century; the concept of the English revolution was created as a purely religious, "puritan" revolution, a revolution without class struggle (S. R. Gardiner). The development of bourgeois I. in the second half of the 19th century. in the leading European countries and in the United States took place under the strong influence of Positivism a (O. Comte, G. Spencer, and others). The most common and most characteristic features of positivist history were: criticism of traditional history (which reduced the task of the historian to describing individual events and the activities of “great people”), increased attention to economic and social history, the rejection of speculative, speculative constructions in favor of accumulation, careful critical verification and description of "positive" historical facts. In this respect, the positivist stage in history meant a certain step forward in the development of bourgeois historical science. At the same time, positivist philosophy was characterized by a mechanical interpretation of the idea of historical regularity, the denial of revolutionary leaps in history and the preaching of evolutionism, and agnosticism in explaining the essence and causes of historical phenomena. Developing at the end of the industrial revolution in the main capitalist countries, under the conditions of the growth of the working-class movement and the class struggle of the proletariat, positivist ideology was turned with its edge against the Marxist worldview and the young Marxist ideology. In Great Britain, historians of the liberal-positivist trend create the first major works on economic history (T. Rogers, W. Kenningham), generalizing synthetic works (G. Buckle's History of Civilization in England, J. Green's History of the English People). Positivist ideology developed intensively in the USA, especially after the Civil War of 1861–65; the works of the historian and sociologist J. Draper were of great importance. In Russian history, the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, who concentrated his attention in the study of the Russian historical process on the analysis of social and economic factors (especially in the works of the 1980s), and who in many respects contrasted his views with the historical concepts of the previously dominant in Russian history, were a new phenomenon. I. state school (See. State school) (B. N. Chicherin, K. D. Kavelin and others). Under the strong influence of positivism, the worldview of N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky developed, who defended the idea of the unity of the Russian and Western European historical process and proved the existence of feudalism in medieval Russia (which was then denied by Russian bourgeois and noble historians). Since the 70-80s. an influential liberal-positivist trend of Russian historians studying Western European history is growing (N. I. Kareev, M. M. Kovalevsky, P. G. Vinogradov, I. V. Luchitsky, later D. M. Petrushevsky, A. N. Savin) ; they made a particularly important contribution to the development of the agrarian history of France and England. In Germany, the influence of positivism was insignificant (the largest German positivist historian was K. Lamprecht). Here, after the unification of the country "from above", the convergence of the liberal and conservative (coming from L. Ranke) directions in Israel was clearly manifested. The historians of the "Little German" school (G. writings created a legend about the "historical mission" of the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty as "collectors and unifiers" of Germany. From the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. signs of a crisis appear in bourgeois history, which has spread primarily to the area of the methodology of history. The social causes of the crisis were associated with the advent of the era of imperialism and the aggravation of the contradictions of the capitalist system, epistemological - with the collapse of the positivist approach to the historical process, which clearly manifested itself in these years. In bourgeois history in the leading capitalist countries, there is a tendency to revise the theoretical and methodological foundations of history as a science (refusal to recognize the natural and progressive nature of social development, the unity of the world historical process, and the objective nature of historical knowledge itself); tendencies to bring history closer to literature and art (and not to the exact sciences, which was characteristic of positivism) intensified. These symptoms were especially pronounced in Germany [the spread of the views of the “idiographic” Baden school of neo-Kantianism (See Neo-Kantianism) (W. Windelband, G. Rickert), M. Weber, and the opposition to the idea of historical regularity by the historians H. von Below, F. Meinecke, G. Onken and others]. The “anti-positivist reaction” was also clearly manifested in Italian I., where the traditional schools, which were partly connected with positivism (“critical-philological”, “economic-legal”), were replaced by the neo-Hegelian “ethico-political” concept of history as the dominant one. Croce (who retained influence in Italian Italy into the 20th century). Late 19th - early 20th centuries - the era of outstanding archaeological discoveries (see Art. Archeology), mastered by historical science. I. continues to accumulate factual material, achieves success in the study of certain aspects of the historical process. Historians are showing increasing attention to the problems of economics and social relations (including ancient history - the German historians E. Meyer, R. Poelman, and others). The organizational foundations of historical science and historical education are being strengthened, fundamental generalizing works appear (for example, "Cambridge History", "World History" by E. Lavisse and A. Rambeau, "History of Western Europe in Modern Times" by N. I. Kareev). In France, large-scale studies on the history of the Great French Revolution are being created (A. Olar and his school, A. Mathiez), works on social and economic history (E. Levasseur, J. Weil), fundamental, written from progressive positions "Socialist History" under edited and with the participation of J. Zhores. In the USA, the foundations of an influential trend of bourgeois economism are being laid: the works of F. Turner appear on the "moving frontier" of the USA as the most important factor in their history in modern times. During this period, C. Beard created his first works, striving to find the socio-economic roots of the political struggle in the United States during the years of the first American revolution. At the same time, in the field of concrete historiographic work, the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. marked by an increase in reactionary tendencies. Emerged at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. The so-called critical trend reconsidered (from reactionary methodological positions) the liberal historical concepts that dominated bourgeois ideology in the second half of the 19th century. The modernization of history inherent in bourgeois India has intensified. In an effort to prove the eternity of the capitalist system, historians of this trend "found" capitalism in antiquity (E. Meyer) and in the Middle Ages (Austrian historian A. Dopsch). The idea of “continuity” (continuity) during the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages (advanced by the French historian N. D. Fustel de Coulanges), which was associated with the denial of revolutionary leaps in history, received ever wider recognition in bourgeois history. In Russia, a vivid manifestation of the crisis of bourgeois historical science was the revival of ideas about the fundamentally different historical development of Russia and Western Europe (primarily in the works of P. N. Milyukov), the influence of neo-Kantian ideas in methodology (A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, D. M. Petrushevsky). The intensified reactionary currents in bourgeois I. were directed not only against Marxism, but also against various variants of the liberal and democratic approach to the historical process (right-wing bourgeois I. in France, pan-German I., the expansionist school in the study of US policy, the chauvinist trend in Italian I. etc.). The Marxist trend in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries The beginning of the Leninist stage in Marxist India. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. in opposition to the ruling bourgeois ideology and in the struggle against it, the Marxist trend develops: I. G. V. Plekhanov, F. Mehring, A. Bebel, P. Lafargue, J. Connolly, A. Labriola, D. Blagoev, and other representatives of it made a serious contribution to the scientific development of the history of the working-class movement, capitalism, the peasantry and peasant movements, revolutions, social thought, and other problems. At the same time, the intensified opportunism of a number of ideologues of the Second International (the German Social Democrats E. Bernstein, K. Kautsky, G. Kunow, and others) had a negative influence on the development of Marxist historical thought, which was also reflected in their historical views on many important problems (the history of capitalism, the international labor movement, colonial policy, etc.). The beginning of a new stage in the development of Marxist historical thought was laid by the works of V. I. Lenin. Of particular importance to I. was the development by Lenin of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the social sciences (including historical science) - the development of the materialist theory of knowledge, dialectical materialist historicism, the upholding of the scientific position on the existence of objective historical laws, the possibility of knowing historical phenomena, the development of principles partisanship in the history of science, a class approach to assessing historical events (“What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the social democrats?”, “Materialism and empirio-criticism”, and other works). All this was especially important in the conditions of the beginning theoretical and methodological crisis of bourgeois historical science. Lenin, in his struggle against bourgeois and reformist ideology, developed and enriched the Marxist conception of the world-historical process. He worked out the problems of the socialist revolution, the role of the masses in the history of bourgeois revolutions, the labor, democratic and national liberation movements, etc. A solid methodological basis for the scientific study of the history of modern times was laid by V.I. the highest stage of capitalism” and other works). Back in the 90s. (The Development of Capitalism in Russia, etc.) Lenin laid the foundations for the Marxist concept of the Russian historical process. In the works of Lenin, such cardinal problems of Russian history as the periodization of the history of Russia and the Russian revolutionary movement, the features of the feudal system in Russia, the genesis of capitalism, the issues of the post-reform socio-economic and political development of Russia, the domestic and foreign policy of tsarism, and much more were fundamentally resolved. The Marxist concept of Russian and world history was developed in Russia by a number of party leaders, publicists, and historians. Marxist historical studies in the USSR and other countries after 1917. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia created the conditions for the first time that the Marxist direction of historical science became the dominant trend in the historical science of an entire country. The formation of Soviet historical science took place in a fierce ideological struggle against the bourgeois-landowner and Menshevik historical concepts, in the struggle against Trotskyist, Kautskyian, and other distortions of history. Soviet historical science relied on the fundamental works of Marx, Engels, Lenin. Of great importance was the further development by Lenin in the post-October period of the Marxist concept of the historical process - a generalization of the experience of preparing and conducting the October Revolution, the first years of Soviet power, the history of the party, the history of the international workers' and national liberation movement, and much more. The needs of socialist construction, the tasks of the communist education of the working people, and the struggle against a hostile ideology brought to the fore the need for the development of new historical problems in young Soviet history. Research by Soviet historians of the first generation (A. A. Adoratsky, M. N. Pokrovsky, I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, E. M. Yaroslavsky, V. I. Nevsky, F. A. Rotshtein, M. S. Olminsky, N. N. Baturin, M. P. Pavlovich, etc.) of topical problems of domestic and general history was an important stage in the development of Soviet Marxist history. They developed the most important problems of modern and recent history: the history of bourgeois revolutions (especially the Great French Revolution), the Paris Communes, the emergence and development of Marxism, the Russian revolutionary movement, Bolshevism, the Great October Revolution, national liberation movements, etc. The study of this new historical problem was organically connected with the formulation and solution of the most important theoretical problems: the role of revolutions in world history, the patterns of class struggle in various stages of social development, the difference between the Great October Socialist Revolution and the revolutions of the past, its character, driving forces, international native meaning, the role of the masses in history, etc. The creation of a new I. on traditional problems and periods of history proceeded primarily along the path of revising and overcoming the idealist concepts of the world-historical process and establishing a materialist understanding of history, along the path of a comprehensive study and rethinking of the historical material accumulated by pre-revolutionary science. Marxist historians of the first generation seriously criticized the most important theoretical propositions of bourgeois ideology—historical idealism, pluralism, various types of modernization of the historical past, and the limited nature of its problems (ignoring the history of the class struggle, etc.). M. N. Pokrovsky, the first of the Russian professional historians who made an attempt at a systematic exposition of the history of Russia from a Marxist position, played a leading role in Soviet historical science in the period of its formation. His activities most clearly reflected both the successes and difficulties of the first stage in the development of Marxist historical science in the USSR. The search for new ways of developing historical thought, given the narrowness of the factual base of research on most problems of history, in combination with the insufficient Marxist training of young cadres, led to some erroneous assessments and positions, gave rise in Soviet I. of that time elements of schematism, "economic materialism" and vulgar sociologism. The successes and weaknesses of the first stage in the development of Soviet I. were also reflected in the studies carried out in the late 1920s and early 1930s. by Marxist historians, discussions about socio-economic formations and the “Asian mode of production”, about the primitive communal system, slavery and feudalism, etc. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, Soviet historians criticized and overcame both the bourgeois-apologetic and nihilistic approaches to the historical past. Since the mid 30s. a new stage in the development of Soviet historical science began. By this time, Marxist-Leninist theory and methodology had established itself in all areas of the study of history. The concept of the world-historical process, considering it as a natural change of socio-economic formations: the primitive communal system, the slave-owning formation, feudalism, capitalism, socialism (communism), became dominant in Soviet historical science. The growth of professional skills, the training of cadres of Marxist historians (including in those branches of historical science that had previously been the monopoly of the old, pre-revolutionary cadres of historians) made it possible to begin an intensive monographic study of many problems and periods of national and world history. The study of socio-economic relations, the position of direct producers has taken a central place in historical research. Thus, the greatest successes of researchers involved in the history of Russian and Western European feudalism were associated with the study of agrarian relations, the history of the peasantry (the works of B. D. Grekov, N. M. Druzhinin on the history of the peasantry in Russia, E. A. Kosminsky, S. D Skazkina and others on the agrarian history of the countries of Western Europe, etc.), Old Russian crafts (B. A. Rybakov). The problems of socio-economic prerequisites for the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia were studied and discussed. Particular attention during this period was paid to identifying the unity of the world-historical process, the general patterns in the development of society. Thus, for example, in the field of ancient history, the point of view was established that not only ancient, but also ancient Eastern societies were slave-owning, much effort was directed to overcoming the “Eurocentrism” inherent in bourgeois India and proving the fundamental unity of the paths of social development of the countries of East and West, etc. e. The point of view about the feudal character of Kievan Rus was established. A significant place in the pre-war, war and post-war periods was occupied by work on exposing the fascist falsification of the history of the Russian and other Slavic peoples, on the history of wars and military art, the military-patriotic theme. At the same time, during these years, features of dogmatism and schematism appeared in historical science, in the study of a number of issues, especially on the history of the Great October Revolution, the Civil War of 1918-20 and the subsequent development of Soviet society, one-sided, subjectivist interpretations appeared that developed in an environment of a personality cult. Stalin. Started in the mid 50s. the elimination of the negative consequences of the personality cult contributed to a more consistent application of Marxist-Leninist principles in the study of historical processes. The range of problems subjected to historical research has expanded. The center of gravity in the study of national history has shifted to the history of Soviet society. I. Soviet society, the history of the party, the study of which was especially lagging behind in the previous period, was replenished with valuable documentary publications, monographic studies, collective works (on the history of October, the Soviet working class and peasantry, socialist industrialization and collectivization, on national-state construction in the USSR and etc.). The history of Marxism and Leninism, the most pressing problems in the history of the world working-class and communist movement, the history of the countries of the socialist community, the formation and development of the world socialist system, and the history of the national liberation movement began to be more actively developed. Significant development has been made in studies of Slavic studies. In essence, for the first time in Soviet history, the history of the countries of Africa and Latin America began to be studied, and research on the history of the countries of Asia expanded significantly. There is a further refinement and improvement of the Marxist-Leninist concept of the world-historical process. This was largely facilitated by the conducted in the 60s. discussions and discussions: about socio-economic formations and the "Asian mode of production", about the genesis of feudalism in Russia, in the countries of Europe and the East, about the "ascending" and "descending" stages of the feudal formation in Russia, about the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe and in Russia, about the main stages of the Russian revolutionary movement and ways of its further study, about Russian imperialism, etc. Still emphasizing the general patterns of the historical process, Soviet researchers began to pay more attention to the specifics of their manifestation in different regions and countries of the world, various options and types of historical development. More than in the previous period, attention is paid to the history of ideology, culture, there has been a trend towards a more comprehensive study of classes and social groups in different historical eras. The problems of the history of historical science began to be developed more intensively. The range of research questions related to the methodological problems of Marxist historical materialism has expanded (the relationship between history and the theory of historical materialism, the criteria of truth in historical science, the subject, method, and tasks of Marxist historical science). , the specifics of historical research) and its conceptual apparatus (epoch, historical fact, transitional period, etc.). Over the years of Marxist history in the USSR, Soviet historians have produced a significant amount of valuable research that has received recognition in the USSR and abroad. A number of research directions have been formed that are distinguished by a certain specificity in the development of major problems of history, for example, M. N. Tikhomirov - on Russian history of the era of feudalism, A. L. Sidorov - on the history of Russian imperialism, I. I. Mints - on the history of the Great October Revolution, M. V. Nechkina - on the history of the Russian revolutionary movement of the 19th century; on the study of the Great French Revolution and the history of socialist doctrines (the formation of these scientific directions is associated with the names of N. M. Lukin, V. P. Volgin); E. A. Kosminsky and A. I. Neusykhin - on the agrarian history of the Western European Middle Ages, V. V. Struve - on the history of the Ancient East, V. B. Lutsky - on the modern and recent history of the Arab countries, I. M. Reisner - on history of India, etc. One of the evidence of the fruitful development of Soviet historical science is the formation and success of national history in the union republics, the creation of their own national cadres of Marxist historians there. (See the articles on the union republics, subsection Historical Science.) The Marxist-Leninist concept of domestic and world history was concretely embodied in the fundamental generalizing collective works - the 10-volume World History (1955-66), the 12-volume History of the USSR. From ancient times to the present day." A 5-volume "History of the Civil War in the USSR" (1935-60), a 6-volume "History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union" were created. 1941-1945" (1963-65), a 6-volume "History of the CPSU" is published. The collective works of Soviet historians are devoted to the study of bourgeois revolutions: "The French Bourgeois Revolution of 1789-1794" (1941), "Revolutions of 1848-1849" (vols. 1-2, 1952), "The English Bourgeois Revolution of the 17th century." (vols. 1-2, 1954). The results of the study of the international labor movement are summed up in the collective works "The Paris Commune of 1871" (vols. 1-2, 1961), The First International (parts 1-3, 1964-68), The History of the Second International (vols. 1-2, 1965-1966), in a brief prepared by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism essay on the history of the Comintern (1969). The collective work "The History of Diplomacy" (1st edition - vols. 1-3, 1941-45; 2nd revised and enlarged edition - vols. 1-3, 1959-65) provides a Marxist coverage of the history of diplomacy throughout its entire length. Special generalizing works are devoted to the foreign policy of the USSR ("History of International Relations and Foreign Policy of the USSR", 2nd ed., vols. 1-3, 1967; "The Soviet Union in the United Nations", vols. 1-2, 1965; "Soviet Union and the United Nations, 1961-1965, 1968, etc.). Collective generalizing works on the history of many foreign countries, including Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, the USA, Italy, on German history, collective works on the modern and recent history of countries of the foreign East and Latin America, etc. have been published. -volume "History of Byzantium" (1967). The Soviet Historical Encyclopedia, the first Marxist universal reference publication on questions of history, was published (13 vols. by 1972). The formation of the world socialist system created the prerequisites for the victory of the Marxist-Leninist ideology in a large group of countries. In the young Marxist I. in foreign socialist countries, along with national specifics, general processes also manifested themselves. Three main stages can be distinguished in the development of I. in most of these countries, mainly associated with common milestones in their historical development. Already in the first period (1945 - the end of the 1940s), measures were taken to create on a new basis and significantly expand the organizational, source study, and publishing base of historical science. However, the Marxist trend during this period, in an atmosphere of fierce ideological, political and class struggle, was just beginning to assert itself as the dominant one. In the academic sphere and in the field of teaching, as a rule, the predominance of old scientists, who were based on the old bourgeois methodology, remained. In the late 1940s and mid-1950s, as the creative core of Marxist historians strengthened and a significant number of monographic works appeared, Marxist methodology gradually gained more and more leading positions. But this process was complex and contradictory; it did not yet capture all areas of historical science. period from the mid-1950s. became, on the whole, the time of the final victory of the Marxist-Leninist methodology of historical research. The establishment and victory of Marxist ideology took place under the ideological leadership of the communist parties. In the field of concrete historical research, historians of the socialist countries are characterized by two main trends. The first is a scientifically reasoned critical rethinking of the old, bourgeois concepts of national history, for example, the reconstruction by historians of the GDR in general works and special monographs of the main lines of the new and recent history of Germany and the history of the German labor movement (G. Shilfert, I. Streisand, K. Oberman, E. Engelberg, H. Barthel, and others), Czech scholars' new treatment of the Revolution of 1848 as a movement not only national, but also social class, the study by Hungarian historians of the liberation struggle of the Hungarian people against the Habsburgs, and others. The second main direction of research by historians of the socialist countries was the discovery and development of new problems, including those ignored by the old science. Entire periods of national history were comprehended for the first time, the objective socio-economic basis of fundamental social processes, which had previously remained in the shadows, was revealed - for example, the fruitful development of the problems of the workers' and peasants' movement in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria (N. Gonserovskaya-Grabovskaya, M. Gosiorovsky, A. Ocetya and others), works on the influence of the Russian Revolution of 1905-1907 and the Great October Socialist Revolution on the development of the class and national struggle (L. Stern, P. Constantinescu-Yash, F. Chulinovich and others), fundamental study of the anti-fascist Resistance Movement in the GDR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania (O. Vintser, I. Maryanovich and others; collective works). There is a noticeable turn towards the study of recent history. A significant place is occupied by the problems of studying people's democratic and socialist revolutions and socialist construction. The fundamental development of such key problems of national history as the history of the peasantry and its class struggle, the formation of the proletariat, the development of the labor movement, the national liberation movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries. and anti-fascist struggle, etc., made it possible to move on to the creation - on the basis of Marxist-Leninist methodology - of generalizing consolidated works on the history of Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and other countries. Much attention is paid to developing the history of revolutionary, cultural and scientific ties between the countries of the socialist system. Scientific contacts between historians of the socialist countries, the use of the experience of Soviet history, and the joint development of a number of cardinal problems of history play an important role in the development of history in the socialist countries. The significant increase in the specific weight of Marxist history after World War II (1939–45), and the collective elaboration of important problems of history by Marxist historians in many countries—all these are new phenomena in the development of world history as a whole. An indicator of the increased influence of the Marxist historical science of the socialist countries on world historical science is, in particular, their active participation in international congresses of the historical sciences (see International Historical Congresses). Soviet scholars are now acting in the international arena together with historians of other socialist countries, finding the support of progressive representatives of the historical science of the capitalist countries. The period of recent history (particularly after World War II) has been marked by a significant growth of the Marxist trend in modernism in many capitalist countries as well. The Marxist historians of these countries have made the most significant contribution to the development of the problems of modern and contemporary history, the labor and socialist movement, the revolutionary traditions of their peoples, economic history and the condition of the working masses. There is a strong Marxist trend in India in France, Italy, Japan, and a number of other countries. The Marxist ideology of France most intensively develops the history of popular movements, the Great French Revolution, economic history, the history of the labor and socialist movement, colonial policy, and the Resistance Movement (A. Sauboul, C. and J. Villars, J. Bruhat, F. Chenot, and others). .). Among the problems of Italian history, which are most thoroughly studied by Italian Marxist historians, the most important place is occupied by the problems of the Risorgimento, the history of the labor and socialist movement, fascism and the anti-fascist movement, the problems of national economic history (E. Sereni, G. Candeloro, G. Manacorda, J. Bertie and others). US Marxist historians have created works that cover almost the entire range of the main problems of US history: the socio-economic development of the country and the two American revolutions, the labor and Negro movements (J. Allen, G. Apteker, W. Foster, W. Perlo, F. Foner and others). The leading problems of national history are being worked out by the Marxist historians of Great Britain (A. Morton, M. Dobb, and others) and other countries. A significant place in Marxist ideology in both the socialist and capitalist countries is occupied by the exposure of the social and ideological orientation of bourgeois and reformist ideology. The growth of Marxist ideology in the capitalist countries is of great fundamental importance. It is not only associated with new successes in the development of a scientific concept of the national history of these countries, but also contributes to an ever greater stratification within bourgeois history. Influenced by the successes of the Marxist school, many historians of the capitalist countries enter into a dialogue, and sometimes even into cooperation, with Marxist historians. In some countries (for example, Italy), a broad progressive democratic camp is emerging in India, where the Marxist trend occupies an honorable place. An important contribution to the development of Marxist history is made by the historians of the countries of Latin America. The Marxist historians of Argentina (R. Iscaro, B. Marianetti, L. Paso), Brazil (C. Pradu Junior, R. Faku, O. Brandan, and others), and Chile (V. made for the development of a scientific concept of the history of these countries, the study of the leading socio-economic processes, the main problems of the class and anti-imperialist struggle. Their activities contributed to the rapprochement of all progressive, national-democratic, anti-imperialist forces. Bourgeois I. after 1917. After World War I of 1914–18 and the Great October Socialist Revolution, the main direction of development of I. was determined by the confrontation on the main methodological and concrete historical questions of Marxist-Leninist and bourgeois I. Bourgeois (and the reformist one adjoining it) I. is in the latest era in a state of ever-deepening crisis. It is expressed primarily in the ideological and methodological attitudes of a significant part of bourgeois history, in the deep penetration of relativism and subjectivism into it, in the denial of historical patterns, which undermines the very foundations of history as a science. There is a growing gap between the increase in the flow of published scientific works and the narrowing of the cognitive possibilities of bourgeois ideology. The “politicization” of a number of trends in bourgeois history has intensified, and the open subservience of its entire schools and trends to the reactionary ruling circles and the monopoly bourgeoisie. Another important aspect of the crisis of bourgeois history is the growing stratification in the camp of bourgeois historians in the face of the collapse of their traditional general ideas and the successes of Marxist history. In the development of bourgeois I. after 1917, two periods can be distinguished: before and after World War II (1939-45). In the first period, the leading position was occupied by the country of the victors in World War I of 1914–18—Great Britain and France; German intelligence, which previously set the tone in many areas of historical research, experienced a decline after the defeat of Germany in World War I. In Great Britain during the interwar period, Labor ideology developed intensively, constituting the history of the labor movement as an equal topic of academic research (J. D. Cole and his followers). Crisis phenomena were clearly manifested in the reactionary concept of the world historical process as the development and change of closed civilizations (A. J. Toynbee), in a broad revision of the traditional liberal concepts of national history by L. Namier and his school. In French I., the activity of the Society for Robespierre Studies (headed by A. Mathieus and later by J. Lefebvre) became a significant phenomenon. Valuable works of this trend on the socio-economic history of the French Revolution were created under the influence of the methodology of Marxism. An attempt to overcome the crisis experienced by bourgeois ideology was the emergence in the 1920s of an influential trend in the study of economic and social history associated with the Annales magazine and with the names of M. Blok and L. Fevre. Valuable works on the socio-economic history of Western European feudalism, the history of culture, and others belong to the researchers of this trend. The Belgian historian A. Pirenne is close to this trend. However, in interpreting the main problems of the history of the Middle Ages, the concept of Dopsh enjoyed the greatest influence among Western European bourgeois historians. In the USA, bourgeois economism was widely developed (C. Beard and his school), and the study of the history of the labor movement expanded and became the property of "academic" science (J. Commons and his followers, the so-called Commons-Wisconsin school). Despite the accumulation by historians of these trends of vast factual material and the well-known successes in elucidating certain aspects of the historical development of the United States, their works were, as a rule, of an apologetic nature, and were far from a scientific reconstruction of the main processes of national history. The struggle between the extremely reactionary nationalist (G. von Below, A. Schaefer and others) and liberal (together with the social reformist who joined it) currents in Weimar Germany by the beginning of the 30s. ended with the victory of the first. As a result, traditional German "historicism" gave way to outright relativism, and then, as a logical consequence, to the delusional Nazi "theory of rhythms" in social development. After World War II, bourgeois history was marked by a further deepening of crisis features and a growing stratification among bourgeois historians in connection with the development of Marxist-Leninist history in the socialist countries and in the capitalist countries themselves. Interest in the theoretical problems of historical science has increased significantly, connected with the desire of bourgeois historical science to oppose Marxist methodology with its own historical synthesis. The present stage in the development of world sociology is characterized by an ever wider introduction into sociology of research methods and results achieved in related scientific disciplines—sociology, economics, demography, social psychology, and others. But this is often accompanied by the assimilation of reactionary theories that dominate bourgeois sociology and other related disciplines, turns out to be a form of historical synthesis within the framework of an idealistic methodology (the growing influence of reactionary sociological theories on I. is especially characteristic of many areas of modern bourgeois historical science in the United States). It is highly indicative, in particular, for modern bourgeois historical research that the structural method is used extensively in historical research and that there is a fascination with quantitative methods in the economic sciences adjacent to history. At the same time, the research methodology practically supplants methodology, and the auxiliary methods of the historian's work, in themselves capable of enriching and deepening his work, are absolutized and turn into their own opposite. Such a "structuralization" and "mathematization" of historical knowledge in the form in which they are carried out by many modern bourgeois historians is additional evidence of the deepening of the crisis phenomena of modern bourgeois history. The increased influence of Marxism on bourgeois history is manifested not only in the transition of some progressive historians to Marxist positions in elucidating a number of major historical problems, but also in attention to those questions and aspects of the historical process that were previously ignored by "academic" science. Modern bourgeois history is characterized by an increased interest in economic history. An indicator of this is the significant increase in the share of historical and economic research, the creation of numerous centers for organizing and coordinating research on socioeconomic problems, the holding (since 1960) of international congresses on economic history, and so on. But the development of bourgeois economic problems is characterized by a focus on the history of trade and finance, partly technology, a departure from the study of industrial relations, consideration of the economy without connection with the class struggle. Thus, the assimilation of bourgeois ideology of the position on the role of the economy in social development takes place in the form of perception of the ideas of economic materialism. For the reactionary part of bourgeois historians, the development of problems of economic history is accompanied by the creation (or assimilation) of bourgeois apologetic historical and economic concepts - for example, the theory of "old" and "new" capitalism (according to which all social vices, deprivations of the masses are explained by the genesis of bourgeois society, and not by the very nature of capitalism, and belong to the distant past), the theory of a "single industrial society", etc. Modern bourgeois history is characterized by the actualization of problems and a noticeably increased attention to the problems of modern and contemporary history. There is a quantitative increase in the literature on the history of the labor movement. Professional historians now take an active part in its study, special publications, scientific societies and research institutes have appeared. A large number of works have been published on the history of Marxism, Leninism, communist and workers' parties, which give a distorted picture of the development of the international workers' movement. Reformist theories became widespread. A significant number of works are imbued with the spirit of anti-communism (in a hidden or in a more overt form). “Evidence” of the obsolescence of Marxism, the random nature of the October Revolution, the opposition of Marxism to Leninism, the alleged absence of prerequisites for a proletarian revolution in the West, the depiction of the international communist movement as a “tool of Moscow”, falsified coverage of the process of folding the world socialist system, the process of industrialization and collectivization in the USSR, the history of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, etc. - the main directions of falsification of history by numerous bourgeois "Sovietologists" and "Kremlinologists". The last decades have brought the forced return of some bourgeois historians to the position of recognizing the unity of the world-historical process. Behind this forced recognition is the rapid upsurge of the national liberation movement in the world, the emergence of a large number of new sovereign states. At the same time, this by no means signifies a complete rejection of Eurocentrism by the leading trends in bourgeois ideology, of theories about the separate development of different regions along vicious circles of “cultures.” The “ultra-left” tendencies of the Maoist persuasion, which in essence have joined forces with the most reactionary currents of imperialist Islam, are also manifested in the development of the relevant problems. In the postwar years, certain changes took place in the development of bourgeois I. in various countries. The United States came to the fore, becoming more active in working out the problems not only of American but also of world history in all its periods. American history sets the tone in many areas of historical research. At the same time, the features of the crisis are even more clearly manifested in it, which are most clearly revealed in theoretical works on history. The once influential economic trend is leaving the stage, it is being replaced by schools that are even more distant from the scientific approach to history. A school of “neoliberalism” appears (A. M. Schlesinger, Jr., R. Hofsteider, and others), whose representatives refuse any analysis of the socio-economic contradictions in American society, glorify the activities of bourgeois reformers, present American capitalism as a dynamic system that adapts its structure to the needs of social development without class struggle and social upheavals. Representatives of the “neoconservatism” school (R. Brown, D. Burstin, and others) go even further in this direction, denying the regularity and inevitability of the War of Independence in North America 1775-83 and the American Civil War 1861-65 and considering these turning points. American history as a consequence of the mistakes made by the revolutionaries. A crudely apologetic “school of business” is emerging that frankly glorifies the US capitalist elite and its deeds, and some historians who study foreign policy and international relations are being transformed into champions of anti-Sovietism and anti-communism and singers of “American world hegemony”. In the post-war period, French history occupies an ever more prominent place. Its characteristic features are the further development of the direction of economic and social history (E. Labrous and others), which continues to be influenced by Marxist methodology. An acute struggle between bourgeois and Marxist India over the central problems of national history is taking place in Great Britain (the history of the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century and the industrial revolution, foreign and colonial policy, the labor movement, the question of the impact of the development of capitalism on the position of the working class, and the fate of the British Empire). ). The leading position in post-war West German I. since the mid-1950s. occupies the so-called pseudo-liberal trend, headed by H. Rothfels, which replaced the H. Ritter group, which dominated the first post-war decade (which largely adhered to the traditions of the compromised Prussian-German reactionary I.). I. countries liberated from colonial and semi-colonial dependence. In the world of modern times, an important phenomenon has been the development of national ideology in countries that have freed themselves from colonial and semi-colonial dependence and embarked on the path of independent development. I. in these countries for a long time had a feudal character (mainly annalistic forms of historical works prevailed, there were no broad generalizations, modern methods of scientific criticism). The emergence of bourgeois ideology here is closely connected with the formation of nations and nationalities, the growth of national self-awareness, and the search for the roots of historical traditions that could be opposed to the influence of the ideology of the colonialists. The process of the formation of national I. is inseparable from the activities of the enlighteners. So, in India at the beginning of the 19th century. Rammohan Rai was one of the first in modern Indian India to study the history of national culture and religion; in China, Kan Yu-wei and Liang Chi-chao undertook a revision of the Confucian texts, trying, based on them, to explain the need for progressive transformations. The beginning of modern I. in the Arab countries was laid by Butrus al-Bustani, Rifaa at-Tahtawi, J. Zeidan, and others; in Iran - Aga Khan Kermani, Malkom Khan; in the Philippines - Jose Rizal. I. of the countries of the East was formed under the strong influence of Western European I. After the liberation of the countries of the East from colonial domination in the Islamic countries of these countries, the desire to rethink the concepts of colonial intelligence and to re-evaluate the events of national history intensifies. The connection between anti-colonialist ideology and interest in national history is becoming more and more clear. Thus, for example, Indian and Pakistani Indians, in contrast to Western bourgeois Indians who considered the Indian uprising of 1857-59 a military revolt, assess this event as a popular progressive uprising; Prominent historical figures (Yugurta in Algeria, Chaka and Dingaan in South Africa, Samori Touré in West Africa, and M. Sakaya in the Philippines) are regarded in national India as heroes of the liberation movement. A significant place in the history of these countries continues to be occupied by the study of antiquity and the Middle Ages. At the same time, scientists are especially attracted by problems that echo modernity. The periods of former greatness are contrasted with the time of colonial oppression. The contemporary African states of sub-Saharan Africa are characterized by a desire to prove the existence of their own distinctive culture among the peoples of these countries long before the appearance of Europeans in Africa, and to cleanse the history of the African peoples from falsification in the writings of some European racist bourgeois historians. A special place in national history is occupied by the history of the liberation movement in modern and contemporary times, the history of national liberation revolutions, and the struggle against imperialism at the present stage. The work of prominent figures in the national liberation movement has a great influence on the formation and development of the national I. [J. Nehru (India), Kemal Ataturk (Turkey), Seku Toure (Guinea), J. Kenyat (Kenya), etc.]. In the young national schools of historians in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, interest in purely political history is giving way to broader topics, in particular, the history of culture, problems of social and economic history. The specialization of historians is deepening not only in individual periods, but also in topics and problems within these periods. The nationalist anti-imperialist ideology of the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America sometimes opposes bourgeois Eurocentrism with an exaggeration of the role of “one’s own continent” or “one’s own” country in world history, an overestimation of the level of its development in certain periods, and the idealization of figures of the past. Thus, supporters of the so-called asiocentrism argue that the states of Asia played the main role in world history; supporters of the theory of so-called African exclusiveness are trying to prove that Africa is following a special path, different from other continents, etc. The Marxist scholars of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are waging a resolute struggle both against the exaggeration of the role of the peoples of Europe in world history, and and against inflating the role of the peoples of some other part of the world, they advocate an objective demonstration of the specific contribution of each people to the world historical process. The Marxist historical science of the socialist countries exerts a significant influence on the history of Asian, African, and Latin American countries.
I. as a scientific discipline that studies the history of historical science. Marxist-Leninist I. has the following main aspects of research:
1) Elucidation of the social basis of historical knowledge at each stage of its development, determination of its social functions in different eras and how they were carried out; the need to study historical concepts in organic connection with the socio-political life of the era when these concepts were developed. This aspect of the study allows us to establish the relationship between historical science and modernity. Considering the relationship between historical science and modernity, I. studies the most important source of the partisanship of historical knowledge, establishes the dependence of the effectiveness of historical knowledge on the social positions of the historian.
2) The study of theoretical and methodological principles inherent in each direction of historical thought. This requires the disclosure of the links between historical science, on the one hand, and philosophy, sociology, political economy, theories of state and law, and theoretical natural science, on the other. At the same time, the study of theoretical and methodological principles cannot be reduced only to an analysis of the totality of the relevant general theoretical statements of historians of one school or another, but involves an analysis of the application of theoretical and methodological provisions in the practice of historical research.
3) Analysis of the source base of historical works, the nature of the use of sources, specific research methods. The study of history in this aspect makes it possible to shed light on the originality of research methods characteristic of various areas of historical thinking, to determine the place of each school in the establishment and systematization of historical facts, and to clarify the relationship between the methodology and methods of historical research.
4) Analysis of the problems of historical research, its development and expansion as the most important manifestation of the progress of historical knowledge and as a manifestation of the socio-economic and political requirements of a given historical era.
5) The study of historical concepts created by various trends and schools of historical thought. The analysis of historical concepts allows, on the one hand, to trace the process of overcoming obsolete historical ideas, and on the other hand, to clarify the moment of continuity in the development of historical science, the use of objectively true results of previous periods of this development in new conditions. On this basis, the struggle of representatives of different schools on issues of history that are topical for a given time is depicted more concretely.
6) Study of the organization and forms of research work in the field of history, including the system of scientific institutions and archives; issues of personnel training, publishing, forms of use and promotion of historical concepts, etc.
Various aspects of historiographic research are closely related. Only a comprehensive study of historiographical material makes it possible to scientifically reproduce both the main lines of the history of historical science as a whole and individual significant phenomena of this history, and makes it possible to use the experience of historical knowledge to develop problems that are relevant from the point of view of the study of history today. The study of historiographic problems in modern conditions requires the researcher to have a high level of general historical culture, a good command of concrete historical material, mastery of Marxist-Leninist theory, which makes it possible to creatively apply the categories of dialectical and historical materialism to the analysis of historiographic phenomena and processes, without which a consistent scientific knowledge of historical history is unthinkable. science.
Lit.: Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR, vols. 1-4, M., 1955-66; Soviet historical science from the 20th to the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. Sat. Art., [h. 1-2], M., 1962-63; Works of Soviet historians for 1965-1969, M., 1970; Chubaryan A. O., Soviet historical science after the XXIII Congress of the CPSU, "Questions of History", 1971, No. 3; Kertman L. E., Larkina K. I., Rakhshmir P. Yu., Ushkevich N. F., Studying the problems of modern and recent history in 1966-1970, ibid., No. 4; Marx is a historian. [Sat. Art.], M., 1968; Gorodetsky EN, Lenin - the founder of Soviet historical science. The history of Soviet society in the works of V. I. Lenin, M., 1970; V. I. Lenin as a historian. Bibliography of Soviet historical literature, "History of the USSR", 1969, no. 4-6; Alekseeva G.D., October Revolution and historical science in Russia (1917-1923), M., 1968; Weinstein O. L., Historiography of the Middle Ages ..., M.-L., 1940; his own, Western European medieval historiography, M.-L., 1964; his, History of Soviet Medieval Studies. 1917-1966, L., 1968; Kosminsky E. A., Historiography of the Middle Ages ..., [M.], 1963; Historiography of the new time of the countries of Europe and America, M., 1967; Historiography of modern and recent history of European and American countries, M., 1968; Postovskaya N. M., The study of the ancient history of the Middle East in the Soviet Union (1917-1959), M., 1961; Kuznetsova N. A., Kulagina L. M., From the history of Soviet oriental studies 1917-1967, M., 1970; Thompson, J. W., A history of historical writing, v. 1-2, N. Y., 1942; Barnes H. E., A history of historical writing, 2 ed., N. Y., 1962; Fueter, E., Geschichte der neueren Historiographie, 3 Aufl., Münch. - B., 1936; Gooch G. P., History and historians in the 19th century, , L. - , 1952; Histoire et historiens depuis cinquante ans. Méthodes, organization et résultats du travail historique de 1876 á 1926, v. 1-2, P., 1927-28; Relazioni del X Congresso Internazionale di scienze storiche, v. 6, Firenze, 1955 (historiographic reviews); Rosenthal F., A history of Muslim historiography, Leiden, 1952; Historians of South East Asia, ed. by D. G. Hall, L., 1961; Historians of the Middle East, L., 1962; Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, ed. by C. H. Philips, L., 1961.
Historical dictionary of gallicisms of the Russian language - (from history and ... graphics), 1) the history of historical science in general, as well as a set of studies devoted to a particular era, topic, problem. 2) The branch of historical science that studies its formation and development (the accumulation of historical knowledge ... ... Modern Encyclopedia
The term "historiography" consists of two Greek words: "history", i.e. reconnaissance, research of the past and "grapho" - I write. The concept of "historiography" is not unambiguous.
Historiography 歴史学 - in the broad sense of the word - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of historical science. Historiography tests the correct application of the scientific method in writing a historical work, focusing on the author, his sources, the separation of facts from interpretation, as well as style, author's biases and the audience for which he wrote this work in the field of history.
In the narrow sense of the word, this is a collection of studies in the field of history devoted to a specific topic or historical era (for example, the historiography of the Tokugawa era), or a collection of historical works that have internal unity in ideological, linguistic or national terms (for example, Marxist, Russian-language or Japanese historiography) .
I draw your attention to one more circumstance. The term "historiography" often denotes historical literature on any issue, problem, period. In this sense, it is customary to talk about the historiography of feudalism, the historiography of the Great French Revolution, the historiography of the peasant reform of 1861 in Russia, etc.
The term "historiography" is also used as a synonym for historical works, historical literature in general. Based on this understanding, in the last century, the authors of historical works were called historiographers.
At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that historiography or the creation of written works on history are by no means inherent in every society. Before the appearance of writing, of course, written history did not exist either: the events of the past were reflected only in oral folk art - folklore.
The idea of the subject of historiography developed gradually, as the theory and practice of historiographic research developed.
History of historiography
In ancient times, even before the advent of writing, historical ideas and some elements of historical knowledge existed among all peoples in orally transmitted legends and legends, in the genealogies of ancestors. The emergence of classes and the state expanded the need for historical knowledge, and the appearance of writing made it possible to start accumulating it. In early class societies, certain conditions were prepared for the development of historical knowledge (for example, various systems of reckoning were developed), the first records of historical content arose: historical inscriptions (of kings, pharaohs), weather records of events, etc. Religion had a huge influence on the description and interpretation of historical events . All historical events were explained by the "will of the gods." Such historical ideas were fixed in "holy books" (for example, in the Bible).
An important stage in the progressive development of historical knowledge was ancient historiography.
It found its highest manifestation in the writings of ancient Greek and then Roman historians. The writings of these historians are no longer fragmentary, but a coherent, entertaining narrative, devoted primarily to political history.
Loading...